Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: the effect on submissions, the return of remaining destinations, the terminal state when none remain, and the side effect of a new signing secret on re-add. That is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the id source, then the post-conditions. No sentence is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-param destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the call returns, what happens at the empty-destination edge case, and the re-add consequence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the provenance of destination_id (from bootform_list_destinations) without adding format or validation meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Removes one notification destination from a form") plus the effect ("its submissions stop going there"), which separates it cleanly from siblings like bootform_delete_form and the bootform_add_* destination tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly directs the agent to obtain the id from bootform_list_destinations, and closes the loop with the re-add guidance ("Adding a webhook again gives it a new signing secret"), so the when and how are both covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.